Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[najak]

This was YOUR ARGUMENT.

Show me where I made any such argument.

In the last day, above, you wrote:

"But who cares what's good enough for you? You're just one person. ...that would apply to the whole world.... so why does it hold for everyone else?"

This isn't MY CLAIM - it's a famous 40 year UNDEBUNKED CLAIM.  I only validated it - and confirmed it's veracity -- so I presented it.  It remains UNDEBUNKED.

If you COULD debunk it, you WOULD.  You won't because you can't... the same those before you for the last 40 years.

[JayUtah]

It remains UNDEBUNKED.

According to whom? The guy who gets his science from The Big Book of Rockets?

If you COULD debunk it, you WOULD.

No. No one is obliged to jump through hoops just because you say so. The ball is in your court. You have work to do before we resume the estimate. Get to it.

[najak]

It remains UNDEBUNKED.

According to whom?

According to the definition of Debunk: "expose the falseness or hollowness of "

"MLH claim shown here is that a steady 26000 kN of upward force for 1 full second is required for this acceleration, and this is unreasonable coming from this context with a 15700 kN engine."

Where is this presentation that "exposes the falseness" of this claim?

Saying that "you CAN assemble a presentation from real math and science to prove this false" is NOT the same as saying that "this has been DONE"..  It simply hasn't.  Therefore, until such a presentation exists, this claim remains UNDEBUNKED, for 40+ years.

[JayUtah]

Where is this presentation that "exposes the falseness" of this claim?

In this thread, until you finally revealed that your objections to it were based on lessons for kids instead of actual science.

Fix that.

[Mag40]

Where is this presentation that "exposes the falseness" of this claim?

In this thread, until you finally revealed that your objections to it were based on lessons for kids instead of actual science.

Fix that.

After the "apology" najak still demonstrates this wilful ignorance and misguided arrogance.

Personally I would jump at the chance of a 1 on 1 tutorial.

[najak]

Personally I would jump at the chance of a 1 on 1 tutorial.

SWEET!  Do it, do it.  Change the world.  Become the first ever to present a valid DEBUNK of this MLH claim.

But don't get your hopes up -- Jay is likely bluffing.  I've seen it too many times before.

[beedarko]

SWEET!  Do it, do it.  Change the world.  Become the first ever to present a valid DEBUNK of this MLH claim.

But don't get your hopes up -- Jay is likely bluffing.  I've seen it too many times before.

Would a "valid debunk of this MLH claim" result in you or any other hoax believer transitioning to a supporter of NASA and the Apollo missions?  Or would you simply move on to the next best conspiracy claim while remaining obstinate?

You seem new to this, which suggests that you don't realize the regular members here already know the answer to that question.  Thousands of interactions with CT's who behave exactly like you have taught them that jumping when you demand action is the wrong strategy.

Now can you address my previous question in this thread?  It was asked in good faith, but so far ignored.

Perhaps you'll contradict my expectations. 

[najak]

Would a "valid debunk of this MLH claim" result in you or any other hoax believer transitioning to a supporter of NASA and the Apollo missions?  Or would you simply move on to the next best conspiracy claim while remaining obstinate?

"I'll consider the alleged acceleration anomaly to be sufficiently explained when _________________, at which time I will ___________ a moon landing ______________ ".
Perhaps you'll contradict my expectations.

I could ask you the same thing.  If Jay fails to be able to debunk this acceleration, as has everyone else - will you become a MLH believer?  Apollo cannot Break Physics.

In the end, it's a gray scale.  Every bit of evidence sways us (or not -- as it seems for many).  It's not binary; at least not for me.   My % conviction would change...

And I would LOVE to change sides.   The world needs more of this.

For me, Physics/Science is the most compelling arguments.    As well as circumstantial evidence (of which there are mounds).  I do not place much weight upon "world scope narratives" regarding nation-relations, wars, etc.  I think there is too much spin here.  War zones are no-journalism zones, except for selected ones -- narratives are controlled.  I trust science/physics that can be witnessed and measured.  When I see someone saying "this is real" then shows me something that breaks physics -- I place a lot of weight on that breakage.

It doesn't matter if 99% "seems fine" - it's that few seconds of "Jedi Powers" that raises the red flag for me... as though you caught a glimpse through the curtain/veil.

[beedarko]

Sorry, but I'm left wanting an actual response to the two questions I asked.  You did a great job of providing answers for the questions I *didn't* ask.

I could ask you the same thing.  If Jay fails to be able to debunk this acceleration, as has everyone else - will you become a MLH believer?  Apollo cannot Break Physics.

It's a malformed question.  Jay asking you to put in the work necessary to understand the fallacies of your own argument isn't a failure.  It's the opposite.

In the end, it's a gray scale.  Every bit of evidence sways us (or not -- as it seems for many).  It's not binary; at least not for me.   My % conviction would change...

By how much, and why?  Isn't it true that you would simply continue down the path you're on now, without so much as a pause for self-reflection? 

And I would LOVE to change sides.   The world needs more of this.
For me, Physics/Science is the most compelling arguments. 

 

Which is probably why the scientific community agrees that Apollo was authentic.  They understand the value of compelling arguments.  It's not clear that you do.

I trust science/physics that can be witnessed and measured. 

The Apollo program was arguably the most witnessed, documented and "measured" event in human history.  It's important to remember however, that measuring requires proper tools, precise data and the expertise to use them.  Would you say the 5th-gen public domain footage you're viewing with consumer software ticks those boxes or no?

When I see someone saying "this is real" then shows me something that breaks physics -- I place a lot of weight on that breakage.

Is it possible that you're not technically capable of discerning the "physics breakage" you describe within the error margins outlined for you?  You present the claim as-if-fact, but I haven't found any evidence in this thread that it's been established.  Just your shouted suppositions. 

[JayUtah]

For me, Physics/Science is the most compelling arguments.

Until it takes more than high school physics to understand what's happening in the video. Then you fall back to desperately trying to shift the burden of proof.

I got no more than two steps into the estimation before you started dragging in irrelevant factors that you suggested made an end-run around everything and decided the question all by themselves. Those objections would have arisen whether I had presented the whole thing as one big bang or step-by-step, so any notion that my approach is evasive is a red herring. We're handling your objections now, so that they cannot be used simply to sidestep the final result as you have in every other thread.

After some prodding, you listed the sources for you objections here: https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg58281#msg58281
I provided my answer here: https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg58305#msg58305 and previously some pertinent information here: https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg58211#msg58211

You never addressed any of that. Since your misconceptions have already compromised your ability to understand what's being presented, it seems essential to clear it up as early as possible.

In summary, your sources are presenting you with a simplified understanding of how rockets work. This is not inappropriate, as they are introductory materials presented for a lay audience. However, they do not equip you to understand the less common factors that apply to the launch video. When I am confident you understand why your use of those materials does not apply to what I'm doing, we can proceed.

[bknight]

"The maximum allowable combustion chamber pressure during start transients was 177 percent of the nominal combustion-chamber pressure." C.E. Humphries, R.E. Taylor. Apollo Experience Report - Ascent Propulsion System, NASA Technical Note TN D-7082 (Houston, TX: 1973), p. 2.

It seems to me that a 177 percent of nominal thrust would generally provide for accelerations beyond the normal thrust conditions.  This alone presents najak with an answer why the accelerations appeared to be too high, because they were higher.

[JayUtah]

It seems to me that a 177 percent of nominal thrust would generally provide for accelerations beyond the normal thrust conditions.  This alone presents najak with an answer why the accelerations appeared to be too high, because they were higher.

To be accurate, chamber pressure is related to thrust. The higher the pressure, the greater the momentum thrust, but it does not follow that a 177% chamber pressure value necessarily results in a 177% momentum thrust value. NASA was interested in LM APS chamber pressure excursions because that's what's going to determine whether the engine survives ignition. That's why they imposed a chamber overpressure requirement. They aren't interested in how much thrust might be produced in an overpressure condition because it doesn't matter for guidance purposes.

Higher chamber pressure also results in more efficient combustion because the propellants are denser and the molecules closer together. That's another source of possible additional thrust, but it's unclear by how much because that's often heavily conflated with possible detriments of very high chamber pressure such as impingement instability. This is studied mostly as a steady-state phenomenon, not as a transience issue. The general rule for both steady-state and transients is simply to measure them, because engine designs differ greatly in those respects.

Obviously many factors will act in concert during the first few seconds of flight, but a failure to understand them in isolation is fatal to any effort at overall understanding. The ignition transient is one effect. Ordinary pressure thrust (which we once estimated accounts for up to 40% of total thrust in the APS and DPS) is another effect. The constrained-exhaust phenomenon is a third effect. There are other components. I got two steps into a method for estimating the constrained-exhaust component before it got driven off the rails by irrelevant objections that remain unresolved.

[bknight]

Ok, I guess I stepped too far, but as you stated there will be an increased thrust for a few seconds, but not necessarily 177%, something lower but above nominal thrust.

[smartcooky]

The list of things that have to be wrong for the moon landings to have been a hoax.

- The vast and comprehensive record of engineering documentation.

- The vast and comprehensive record of mission documentation, photographs and films.

- The uninterrupted, live television broadcasts.

- The over 485,000 people from more than 25 countries who were either directly or indirectly involved in the Apollo Program.

- The staff at the DSN stations in the US, Australia and Spain who saw and heard the astronauts' communications, and who could see exactly in what direction their dish antennas were pointing!

- All the independent witnesses who saw aspects of the flights in the night sky, such as retro fires.

- Several hundred pounds of Moon rocks that have been independently verified by scientists from all over the world as impossible to have formed on earth, and must have come from the moon.

- Third party witnesses who heard radio broadcasts directly from the moon.

- Third party organizations that tracked the Apollo landers to the surface of the Moon.

- The Far Ultraviolet Camera on Apollo 16 that took photos of Earth and stars that matched observations from orbiting ultraviolet telescopes

- The staff at the observatories in France, Italy, Germany and the USA who are still to this day, conducting Lunar Laser Ranging using the LLR reflectors left at five of the landing sites on the moon by Apollo astronauts.

- The Lunar photographic orbiters from multiple counties that have photographed the Apollo descent stages, the scientific equipment, the foot tracks and the LRV tracks that are still on the moon.

The list of things that have to be wrong for the moon landings to have really happened

- Moon Hoax Believers


For the moon landing to be a hoax, the relevant people in first list have to be liars who faked their accounts, experiences and evidence.

For the moon landing to be a hoax, the relevant people in second list only need to be stupid.

[Mag40]

But don't get your hopes up -- Jay is likely bluffing.  I've seen it too many times before.

Ahaaa - BINGO! He's "new" to the forum but "knows" all about JayUtah.